BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON Public Safety
Senator John Vasconcellos, Chair S
1999-2000 Regular Session B
5
9
0
SB 590 (Morrow)
As Amended April 6, 1999
Hearing date: April 13, 1999
Penal Code
MK:br
DEATH ROW INMATES: SANITY
HISTORY
Source: California District Attorneys Association
Prior Legislation: None
Support: Doris Tate Crime Victims Bureau
Opposition:California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
(ANALYSIS REFLECTS AUTHOR'S AMENDMENTS TO BE OFFERED IN
COMMITTEE)
KEY ISSUES
SHOULD A SANITY HEARING FOR A PERSON UNDER A SENTENCE OF DEATH BE HELD IN THE
COUNTY WHICH SENTENCED THE PERSON TO
DEATH?
INSTEAD OF BEING REQUIRED TO FILE IMMEDIATELY, SHOULD A DISTRICT ATTORNEY HAVE
10 DAYS TO FILE FOR A SANITY HEARING?
PURPOSE
(More)
SB 590 (Morrow)
Page 2
The purpose of this bill is provide that the sanity hearing
for a person sentenced to death shall be held in the county
in which the sentence was imposed and not in the county in
which the prison in which the defendant is being held is
located.
Existing Constitutional law provides that it is
unconstitutional to impose the death penalty on a person
who is insane at the time he or she is to be executed.
( Ford v. Wainwright (1986) 477 U.S. 399)
Existing law provides that no judge, court or officer,
other than the Governor may suspend the execution of a
judgment of death, except the warden of the State prison to
whom he is delivered for execution when sanity is an issue,
unless an appeal is taken. (Penal Code section 3700)
Existing law provides that whenever a person is sentenced
to death, the warden at the prison to whom the defendant
has been delivered for execution shall notify the Director
of Corrections who shall thereupon appoint three alienists
from the medical staffs of the Department of Corrections
(CDC) to examine the defendant and investigate his or her
sanity. The alienists are to investigate the defendant's
sanity and report their opinions and conclusions thereon to
the Governor at least 20 days prior to the date of
execution. (Penal Code section 3700.5)
Existing law provides that if there is good reason to
believe that a defendant under judgement of death, has
become insane, the warden must call such fact to the
attention of the district attorney of the county in which
the prison is situated, whose duty it is to immediately
file in the superior court of such county a petition
stating the conviction and judgment, and the fact that the
defendant is believed to be insane and asking that this
question of sanity be inquired into and then the court must
summon and impanel a 12 person jury for the inquiry.
(Penal Code section 3701)
(More)
SB 590 (Morrow)
Page 3
Existing law provides that the district attorney must
attend the hearing and may produce witnesses before the
jury, for which purpose he may issue process in the same
manner as for witnesses to attend before the grand jury.
(Penal Code section 3702)
Existing law provides that when it is found that the
defendant is insane, the court order must direct that he be
taken to the medical facility of CDC and there kept in safe
confinement until his reason is restored. (Penal Code
section 3703)
Existing law provides that if it is found that the
defendant is sane, the warden must proceed to execute the
judgment as specified in the warrant; if it is found that
the defendant is insane, the warden must suspend the
execution and transmit a certified copy of the order to the
Governor and deliver the defendant to the CDC medical
facility. When the defendant recovers his sanity, the
medical facility must certify that fact to the judge who
then shall hold a hearing after ten days written notice to
determine whether or not in fact the defendant has
recovered his or her sanity. If the judge determines the
defendant has recovered his or her sanity, he shall certify
the fact to the Governor who shall issue a new warrant of
execution. If the defendant has not recovered his or her
sanity, he or she shall be returned to the CDC medical
facility. (Penal Code section 3704)
This bill provides that instead of having the sanity
hearing in the county where the defendant is imprisoned,
the district attorney of the county in which the judgment
of death was executed shall be notified that the defendant
is believed to be insane and that that district attorney
shall be the one to file a petition in superior court in
the court of the county in which the judgement of death was
executed and that court shall summon and impanel a
12-person jury.
COMMENTS
(More)
SB 590 (Morrow)
Page 4
1. Need for the Bill
According to the author:
Under current law, all of the defendant's appeals
originate from the committing county except
insanity hearing. Therefore if the defendant
alleges he or she is insane then the hearing is
conducted in Marin County. This places an undue
burden on the victim's family, the committing
county as well as Marin County.
2. Movement of Sanity Trial
Under exiting law, when there is a question of the sanity
of a person sentenced to death, the Warden of San Quentin
notifies the district attorney of Marin County who files a
petition in the Marin Superior Court which calls a jury to
hear the issue.
This bill would provide that instead the district attorney
in the county where the defendant was convicted would file
the petition to be heard in the superior court in that
county.
The sponsor of the bill asserts that:
Under current law, all of the defendant's appeals
originate from the committing county except for
this one. If a death row inmate alleges that he or
she is insane, the hearing and trial are set in
Marin County. This places a burden not only on
Marin County, but also on the committing county,
which must send the prosecutors and defense
attorneys most familiar with the case to Marin
along with any evidence or witnesses that might
pertain to the case. For instance, in the recent
sanity trial for Horace Kelly, both San Bernardino
and Riverside Counties had to incur significant
(More)
SB 590 (Morrow)
Page 5
cost and burden by sending prosecutors up to Marin
County for the trial.
(More)
SB 590 (Morrow)
Page 6
The opposition notes that unlike other court hearings that
may occur regarding the charging of a death penalty
defendant, the focus of a sanity hearing is whether or not
the defendant is insane and thus will focus on the person's
recent behavior in prison.
CACJ states:
A sanity trial in any county other than the one
where the inmate is housed will be logistically
difficult and costly. Nearly all the witnesses
will be San Quentin personnel who have observed the
inmate over a long period of time and can provide
details of his or her behavior. If the trial is
held in a county that is far from the prison where
the witnesses are located it will cost a great deal
of money in travel and hotel accommodations, and
delay the trial itself, while both the prosecutor
and the prisoner's counsel go to San Quentin to
conduct interviews to determine which witnesses
will be called to testify at the trial. In
addition, a trial in a remote location will disrupt
San Quentin's operations and impose significant
costs on the Department of Corrections, as its
personnel are forced to travel to the trial court
to testify.
There are also security concerns for correctional
officers. They will have custody of the prisoner
during the trial, and will have to transport him
back and forth to court. A prisoner with an
impending execution is on twenty-four hour watch,
with special restrictions on his activities, his
contacts with other inmates, and his visiting. All
of these will have to be strictly observed and
monitored by San Quentin staff while the trial is
proceeding. The correctional officers will also be
responsible for transporting any inmate witnesses
from death row to trial, and will have to segregate
those inmates from others in county jail. All of
SB 590 (Morrow)
Page 7
those substantial risks are avoidable.
The opposition also notes that while current law provides
that the DA must file a notice in superior court
immediately upon notification by the warden that the
defendant's sanity is in doubt, this bill gives the DA ten
days to file such notice. This could allow the defendant
to be executed before the determination is made.
SHOULD SANITY TRIALS TAKE PLACE IN THE COUNTY WHERE THE
DEATH SENTENCE WAS IMPOSED OR IN MARIN COUNTY?
IF THE PRIMARY WITNESSES WILL BE SAN QUENTIN PERSONNEL AND
POTENTIALLY OTHER PRISONERS WHAT WILL BE THE LOGISTICS OF
TRANSPORTING ALL THOSE WITNESSES TO ANOTHER COUNTY?
IF THE FOCUS OF A SANITY TRIAL IS THE DEFENDANT'S SANITY AT
THE PRESENT TIME, IS IT REASONABLE TO MOVE THE HEARING AWAY
FROM WHERE THE DEFENDANT IS CURRENTLY HOUSED?
SHOULD THE DA FILE THE NOTICE FOR A SANITY HEARING
IMMEDIATELY INSTEAD OF HAVING UP TO TEN DAYS?
***************